The journalists killed were Farouk al-Zahir, producer and director, Magdy Abdel Rahman, a camera operator, Ibrahim Mudawi, an editor and director, who succumbed to his injuries later that day, and the crew’s driver, Wajeh Jaafar. 

“We are deeply saddened by the killing of Sudanese state television journalists Farouk Al-Zahir, Magdy Abdel Rahman, Ibrahim Mudawi, and their driver Wajeh Jaafar, who were killed while courageously covering historical events on the ground in Khartoum,” said CPJ Program Director Carlos Martínez de la Serna. “Journalists should never be targets in conflict. All parties to Sudan’s war must ensure the safety of the press and respect the essential role journalists play in documenting truth, even in times of war.”

The state television crew had arrived at the presidential palace early Friday to document the SAF’s advance when they were hit by what was described as a loitering munition. Two local journalists told CPJ on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of reprisal, that the journalists were targeted by the RSF for their coverage.

Sudan remains one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists since the war between the SAF and the RSF broke out April 2023, with at least 8 journalists killed in connection with the war.

CPJ’s requests for comment about the killings sent to the RSF via Telegram were not returned.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The journalists killed were Farouk al-Zahir, producer and director, Magdy Abdel Rahman, a camera operator, Ibrahim Mudawi, an editor and director, who succumbed to his injuries later that day, and the crew’s driver, Wajeh Jaafar. 

“We are deeply saddened by the killing of Sudanese state television journalists Farouk Al-Zahir, Magdy Abdel Rahman, Ibrahim Mudawi, and their driver Wajeh Jaafar, who were killed while courageously covering historical events on the ground in Khartoum,” said CPJ Program Director Carlos Martínez de la Serna. “Journalists should never be targets in conflict. All parties to Sudan’s war must ensure the safety of the press and respect the essential role journalists play in documenting truth, even in times of war.”

The state television crew had arrived at the presidential palace early Friday to document the SAF’s advance when they were hit by what was described as a loitering munition. Two local journalists told CPJ on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of reprisal, that the journalists were targeted by the RSF for their coverage.

Sudan remains one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists since the war between the SAF and the RSF broke out April 2023, with at least 8 journalists killed in connection with the war.

CPJ’s requests for comment about the killings sent to the RSF via Telegram were not returned.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Janine Jackson: Unfortunately, we can assume listeners know the popular right-wing lines: Immigrants—that’s shorthand for Black and brown immigrants—are criminals, violent drug criminals especially, but also they’re stealing jobs, draining social services and, in election season, we hear they’re voting illegally in large numbers, because they are, in some way, props for the Democratic Party.

Anyone who wants to dispute those noxious tropes can do so with a search engine. Harder to combat is the overarching and bipartisan framing of immigration and immigrants as a “problem.” How do we replace batting away the latest slur with the reality-based humane conversation we need to move us to the 21st century immigration and asylum policies we could have?

Insha Rahman is vice president of advocacy and partnerships at the Vera Institute of Justice and the director of Vera Action. She joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Insha Rahman.

Insha Rahman: Thanks for having me, Janine.

Guardian (9/15/24)

JJ: Rather than ask you to engage intentionally misleading anti-immigrant talking points, I wonder if you would talk a little about the impacts. What is the fallout of myths and misinformation that might sound laughable or dismissable to many of us—what’s the fallout in the lives of the communities that you work with?

IR: First of all, the Willie Horton playbook of exploiting voters’ fears about crime, and frankly the dog whistles about race and criminality, it’s nothing new. When I say Willie Horton, everybody knows the 1988 ad that was run and allegedly sunk Michael Dukakis’ Democratic bid for president, and it’s a playbook that is old, well worn. We’ve seen it every election cycle.

And so this year, in 2024, if you feel like you’re hearing about immigration and migrants and cats and dogs nonstop, it isn’t anything new. It is really just another page of the Willie Horton playbook.

And it’s not really about immigration or immigration policies. Every poll that we have done, that we have seen, has found that Americans, by and large, understand that immigration is a fundamental part of our society, of our economy, of our communities. We are a country of immigrants. But, when it is wrapped up in a fear of crime, and playing upon racist tropes about crime and criminality, that’s where it has political impact.

And the fallout, we can see: One of the most depressing and staggering polls that I’ve seen recently is that overall support for immigration, which used to be a majority of Americans, including independents and moderate voters, supported immigration to this country. They fundamentally believed immigration is a good thing for our communities, our families, our economy. Now that support has dipped, for the first time, to below 50%. And so there’s a real fallout in terms of support for policy that’s actually smart and sensible.

Christian Science Monitor (9/19/24)

And then we see it in very real ways in places like Springfield, Ohio, where there has been a lot of legal—I should say, legal—immigration of Haitian migrants to this country, who are fleeing really devastating circumstances in Haiti. We’re watching bomb threats in local schools, immigrant residents of Springfield feeling afraid. In fact, all residents of Springfield feeling afraid, because suddenly the city, that nobody had heard of until September 10 and the presidential debate, is literally in the Klieg lights, and everyday Americans and a lot of politicians are talking about Springfield. So much so that even the Republican governor of Ohio said, “Stop the fearmongering, stop the misinformation. We are just fine. What Springfield needs is our support and help, and not fearmongering and rhetoric about us.”

JJ: I think that media give inadequate attention to the carryover or bleed-through effects. It’s not to say that people who fall for anti-immigrant misinformation, they’re not asking folks before they harass them, “To be clear, you’re Haitian, right? You’re not Dominican. I don’t want to get my hatred wrong.” It’s treated as though these are targeted attacks, and as though they end when one particular incident is resolved, or when the cameras go away. But, of course, the impact on communities goes on and on.

IR: Yeah.

JJ: Changing facts on the ground with law, with policy, with institutional culture can save and can change lives. It does also work to shift the dialogue about what’s possible, about what life looks like after you change that law, for example. What are some of the legal or policy changes that you think could be important right now, that could shift the ground on immigration and asylum?

Washington Monthly (5/21/24)

IR: One of the things that we have seen there’s widespread support for, and that can be done, is just: when there are new immigrants to our cities, to our communities, we make sure that they have the ability to work. Work, employment, is life-changing for everybody, including US citizens and other members of the community, who benefit from more labor. Right now, in many parts of this country, we have more jobs than we have people to fill them, and immigration is a necessary thing; it’s why economists across the country, across the political spectrum, say we actually need immigration. We can’t build a wall and mass-deport people and shut down the borders, because we literally will have an economic crisis in this country. So employment is a really basic thing we can do.

Another thing is, sometimes people hear, folks who are coming to our cities, especially people who are bused up from Texas and other border states, Florida—people resent housing and services and making sure basic needs are met. Well, in fact, that is cheaper than the alternative. And it is good for all of us.

And it’s not for forever: If you help somebody get on their feet with some temporary housing for three to six months, they have a work permit in hand, they have a job, they will not need to be dependent on government services and resources. It is actually better for us to set people up for a small period of time for future success.

And we’ve watched some cities do that really well. For example, Boston did not engage in the kind of fear-mongering about “all these newly arrived migrants, it’s going to be the end of the city, it’s going to destroy us,” which is what we heard from a certain elected mayor in New York City. That wasn’t the approach that Boston took. And, in fact, they’ve had a lot of newly arrived migrants as well, and they’ve managed it. And you’ll see they have really good outcomes, and there’s generally a sense of positivity towards new arrivals there in a way that there simply isn’t in New York City.

Insha Rahman: “There’s some really clear policy things we can do for folks who have just come here, like work permits, like making sure there is transitional housing and support and services.”

And so, again, there’s some really clear policy things we can do for folks who have just come here, like work permits, like making sure there is transitional housing and support and services. All of that is a better investment in our communities and our economy than the alternative.

And then we see there’s always been and always will be widespread support for a path to citizenship and legalization for folks who have been here, who are part of the fabric of our communities. And so those are some of the things we could do literally immediately, but at the local level, in terms of cities and states.

And then what we need to see Congress do—and 10 years ago there was, in fact, bipartisan support for more paths to citizenship. And we need to bring the Overton window and shift it back to there, because that’s actually good for all of us.

And one other thing I’ll just mention as a policy point is, even under the law as it is—and I would say we need to update the immigration laws so that there’s more legal paths to citizenship for folks. But even with the laws that we have, making sure people have lawyers, they have some basic due process before they’re facing deportation, means many more people access the asylum laws, other forms of relief under current immigration law, which means it keeps people and families together, it keeps people in jobs.

My organization, the Vera Institute of Justice, we run a national program where we’re helping folks who are facing deportation have access to counsel, and literally people are 10 times more likely to win their case and be able to stay in the country, stay with their families, be in their jobs and in their communities, than if they have to go through deportation proceedings without a lawyer. And there’s no right to a lawyer in those proceedings. And that’s a really big problem for keeping families and communities together.

JJ: Just finally, what would you be looking for in a healthy public conversation about the changes we need to get from where we’re at to where we could be, and maybe who would be in that conversation that isn’t being heard from so much now?

IR: Too often, the conversation about immigration is dominated by politicians who are looking to score cheap political points. And if you listen to their rhetoric, they don’t have a single solution. Mass deportation is not a solution. Building a wall is not a solution.

New York Times (9/30/24)

And you know who actually has, and maybe they’re unlikely players in this, but folks who actually have very clear solutions for how we have a real and thoughtful conversation about immigration, that’s business owners and chambers of commerce. And, again, I made the point earlier that economists are like, “If we just shut down immigration, if we deport everybody, our economy will collapse.” Nobody understands that better than businesses and business owners, and they’re actually a really important voice in this conversation that often gets overlooked.

Just to go back to Springfield, Ohio, that we talked about, you actually saw the local chamber of commerce, and a number of different business owners, go out and speak publicly on the record, on the nighttime news and the newspaper and city council hearings, to say, “We need our immigrant workers and family members and community members, because they’re a vital part of our economy.”

So I actually think that’s a missing voice in this conversation that could help to bring the poles together, because the right likes business. I think the left can live with business, if business is coming at the issues in the right way. And I think there’s an opportunity to really actually bring people together, and have a more reasoned, thoughtful conversation about what the path forward is.

JJ: We’ve been speaking with Insha Rahman, vice president of advocacy and partnerships at the Vera Institute of Justice, and the director of Vera Action. Find their work online at Vera.org. Thank you so much, Insha Rahman, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

IR: Thanks for having me, Janine.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

Newsweek (9/27/24)

This week on CounterSpin: “How Hurricane Helene Could Impact Florida’s Home Insurance Crisis” was a recent Newsweek headline, on a story with a source saying smaller insurers were “especially in danger.” A layperson might wonder why events we pay insurance for should present a crisis for the industry we pay it to. The unceasing effects of climate disruption will only throw that question into more relief.

Writer and historian Derek Seidman joins us to help understand what’s happening and how folks are resisting.

Vera Institute (3/21/24)

Also on the show: If it comes to issues that many unaffected people are told to care strongly about, immigration from the southern border is high on the list. But how seriously should we attend to a public conversation where believing that your Haitian neighbors want to eat your pets is not a bar to entry? We’ll talk about building a humane dialog on immigration and asylum policy with Insha Rahman,  vice president of advocacy and partnerships at the Vera Institute of Justice and the director of Vera Action.

Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look back at media coverage of the TikTok ban.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.

“CPJ is alarmed by the apparently baseless criminal cases lodged against Bangladeshi journalists in retaliation for their work, which is seen as supportive of the recently ousted government,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Beh Lih Yi. “Bangladesh’s interim government should ensure that authorities respect the procedural rights of those accused, as well as their right to a fair trial, while safeguarding the ability of all journalists to report without fear of reprisal.”

Hasina fled to India on August 5 following mass protests that ended her 15-year rule. Dozens of Bangladeshi journalists whose reporting was considered favorable of Hasina’s government have since been targeted in criminal investigations.

On August 31, a court in Bangladesh’s capital Dhaka jailed Farzana Rupa, former principal correspondent at the privately owned, pro-Awami League broadcaster Ekattor TV, and Shakil Ahmed, Rupa’s husband and former head of news at the broadcaster, on judicial remand following nine days in police custody, according to a person familiar with the case, who spoke to CPJ on the condition of anonymity due to fear of reprisal.

Police detained Rupa and Ahmed — who were dismissed from their positions at Ekattor TV on August 8 — at Dhaka’s Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport on August 21. Officers also confiscated the couple’s mobile phones and passports, according to the anonymous source, adding that the journalists were both being held in relation to two cases of instigating murder during the mass protests.

Rupa began receiving an influx of threats in July after questioning Hasina about the protests that ultimately led to her ousting, the anonymous source said.

On September 16, police detained two other Ekattor TV journalists — Mozammel Babu, managing director and editor-in-chief, and Mahbubur Rahman, a senior reporter — along with Shyamal Dutta, editor of the privately owned newspaper Bhorer Kagoj, and their driver, after the group allegedly attempted to illegally enter India from Bangladesh’s northern Mymensingh district.

The following day, a Dhaka court ordered that Babu and Dutta be held in a seven-day police remand in two separate murder cases, while Rahman and the driver were released, according to the anonymous source.

Rupa, Ahmed, Babu, and Dutta were also among the more than two dozen journalists named in an August complaint filed at Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal, a domestic war crimes tribunal, on allegations of involvement in crimes against humanity and genocide during the mass protests.

Twenty-eight other journalists also are facing investigations in connection with the mass protests. On September 4, a court in the southeastern city of Chittagong ordered the Police Bureau of Investigation to probe a criminal complaint filed by a teacher against the journalists and 81 other people.  

The complaint, reviewed by CPJ, cites several sections of the penal code, including promoting enmity between classes, causing grievous hurt, and kidnapping, as well as sections of the Explosive Substances Act of 1908, which can carry a sentence of the death penalty or life imprisonment. It also accuses several privately owned news outlets — including Ekattor TV, Somoy TV, and the Dhaka Tribune newspaper — of failing to publish or broadcast appropriate coverage of the protests.

Enamul Haque Sagor, a Bangladesh police spokesperson, did not respond to CPJ’s calls and WhatsApp messages requesting comment on the latest arrests and investigations.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Janine Jackson interviewed Northwestern University’s Hatim Rahman about algorithms and labor for the July 5, 2024, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

Janine Jackson: Many of us have been bewildered and bemused by the experience of walking out of a doctor’s appointment, or a restaurant, and within minutes getting a request to give our experience a five-star rating. What does that mean—for me, for the establishment, for individual workers? Data collection in general is a concept we can all grasp, but what is going on at the unseen backend of these algorithms that we should know about to make individual and societal decisions?

University of California Press (2024)

Hatim Rahman is assistant professor of management and organizations at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. He’s author of the book Inside the Invisible Cage: How Algorithms Control Workers, forthcoming in August from University of California Press. He joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Hatim Rahman.

Hatim Rahman: Thank you. I’m excited to be here.

JJ: The book has broad implications, but a specific focus. Can you just start us off explaining why you focused your inquiry around what you call “TalentFinder”? What is that, and what’s emblematic or instructive around that example?

HR: Sure, and I want to take you back about a decade ago, when I was a graduate student at Stanford University, in the engineering school, in a department called Management Science and Engineering. And at that time, when I was beginning my studies, there was a lot of talk about the future of work, and how technology, specifically algorithms and artificial intelligence, are going to lead us to the promised land. We are going to be able to choose when to work, how often we want to work, because, essentially, algorithms will allow us to pick the best opportunities and give us fair pay. And from an engineering perspective, there was this idea that it was technically feasible.

But as I began my studies, I realized that the technical features of algorithms or artificial intelligence don’t really tell us the whole story, or really the main story. Instead, these technologies really reflect the priorities of different institutions, organizations and individuals.

And so that’s kind of the through line of the book, but it was playing out in what a lot of people call the “gig economy.” Many of us are familiar with how Uber, Airbnb, even Amazon to a large extent, really accelerated this concept and the idea of the gig economy. And so you mentioned, I found this platform, which I use a pseudonym called TalentFinder, that was trying to use algorithms to create an Amazon for labor. What I mean by that is, just as you pick a product, or maybe a movie or TV show on Netflix, the thought was, if you’re looking to hire somebody to help you create a program, write a blog post, any task that you can think about that’s usually associated with knowledge work, that you could go onto this platform and find that person, again, as I alluded to earlier, just as you find a product.

And the way they were then able to do that, allow anybody to sign up to work or to find somebody, was with the use of these algorithms. And what I found, though, the reality of the situation was, that as the platform scaled, it started to prioritize its own goals, which were often in conflict, or were not shared, with workers on these platforms.

JJ: So let’s talk about that. What do you mean by that, in terms of the different goals of employers and potential workers?

HR: Sure. So it kind of went to the example you started with, that one of the thoughts was—actually, I’m going to take you back even further, to eBay. When eBay started, we take it for granted now, but the thought was, how can I trust that this person I don’t know, I don’t even know them. How can I trust that the images that they’re showing, the description that they put on, is true?

JJ: Right, right.

(via Reddit)

HR:  And so eBay pioneered, really, or at least they’re the most famous example of the early company that started, like, “Hey, one way we can do this is through a rating system.” So I may take a chance and buy a product with somebody I don’t know, and if they send me what they said, I’m going to give them a five-star rating, and if they don’t, I’ll give them a lower rating.

And so since then—that was in the mid-’90s—almost all online platforms and, as you mentioned, organizations and—sorry, it is a small tangent: I was recently traveling, and I saw an airport asking me for my ratings for my bathroom experience.

JJ: Of course, yes. Smiley face, not smiley face.

HR: Exactly, exactly. Everyone copy and pastes that model. And that is helpful in many situations, but it doesn’t capture, a lot of times, the reality of people’s experiences, especially when you think about the context that I talked about. If you hired me to create a software program, and we work together for six months, there are going to be ups and downs. There are going to be things that go well, things that don’t necessarily go well, and what does that mean if you gave me a 4.8 or 4.5, right?

And so this was something that workers picked up on really early on in the platform, that these ratings, they don’t really tell the whole experience, but the algorithms will use those ratings to suggest, and people will use the search results that the algorithms curate, to make decisions about who to hire, and so on and so forth.

The problem that I traced, over the evolution of the platform, is that once workers realized that it was really important, they found out ways to game the system, essentially, to get a five-star rating all the time. And from speaking to workers, they felt this was justified, because a lot of times in an organization that hires them, they mismanage the project….

And so, in response, what the platform did, and now again almost all platforms do this, they made their algorithm opaque to workers. So workers no longer understood, or had very little understanding, of what actions were being evaluated, how they were being evaluated, and then what was the algorithm doing with it.

So, for example, if I responded to somebody faster than the other person, would the algorithm interpret that as me being a good worker or not? All of that, without notice or recourse, became opaque to them.

I liken it to, if you received a grade in class, but you don’t know why you got that grade. And, actually, many of us may have experienced this going through school; you hear this “participation grade,” and it’s like, “Wait, I didn’t know that was a grade, or why the professor gave me this grade.”

So that does happen in human life as well. One of the points I make in the book is that as we turn towards algorithms and artificial intelligence, the speed and scale at which this can happen is somewhat unprecedented.

Jacobin (2/20/18)

JJ: Right, and I’m hearing Taylorism here, and just measuring people. And I know that the book is basically engaged with higher-wage workers, and it’s not so much about warehouse workers who are being timed, and they don’t get a bathroom break. But it’s still relevant to that. It’s still part of this same conversation that’s categorically different; algorithm-driven or determined work changes, doesn’t it, the basic relationship between employers and employees? There’s something important that is shifting here.

HR: That’s correct. And you are right that one of the points that I make in the book, and there’s been a lot of great research and exposés about the workers that you mentioned, in Amazon factories and other contexts as well, that we’ve seen a continuation of Taylorism. And for those who are less familiar, that essentially means that you can very closely monitor and measure workers.

And they know that, too. They know what you’re monitoring, and they know what you’re measuring. And so they will often, to the detriment of their physical health and well-being, try to conform to those standards.

And one of the points I make in the book is that when the standards are clear, or what you expect them to do is comparatively straightforward—you know, make sure you pack this many boxes—we will likely see this enhanced Taylorism. The issue that I’m getting at in my book is that, as you mentioned, we’re seeing similar types of dynamics being employed, even when the criteria by which to grade people or evaluate people is less clear.

So, again, for a lot of people who are engaged in knowledge work, you may know what you want, but how you get there….  If you were to write a paper or even compose a speech, you may know what you want, but how you’re going to get there—are you going to take a walk to think about what you’re going to say, are you going to read something unrelated? It’s less clear to an algorithm whether that should be rewarded or not. But there is this attempt to try to, especially in trying to differentiate workers in the context that I mentioned.

So the problem with everyone having a five-star rating on eBay or Amazon, or on TalentFinder that I studied, is that for people who are trying to then use those ratings, including algorithms, it doesn’t give any signal if everyone has the same five-star rating. In situations and contexts where you want differentiation, so you want to know who’s the best comparatively to other people on the platform, or what’s the best movie in this action category or in the comedy category compared to others, then you’re going to try to create some sort of ranking hierarchy. And that’s where I highlight that we’re more likely to see what I call this “invisible cage” metaphor, where the criteria and how you’re evaluated becomes opaque and changing.

JJ: I think it’s so important to highlight the differentiation between workers and consumers. There’s this notion, or this framework, that the folks who are working, who are on the clock and being measured in this way, somehow they’re posed or pitted against consumers. The idea is that you’re not serving consumers properly. And it’s so weird to me, because consumers are workers, workers are consumers. There’s something very artificial about the whole framework for me.

HR: This is returning to one of the earlier points that I mentioned, is that we have to examine what in my discipline we call the “employment relationship.” How are people tied together, or not tied together? So in the case that you mentioned, many times consumers are kept distant from workers; they aren’t necessarily even aware, or if they are aware, they aren’t given much opportunity.

So generally speaking, for a long time, like Uber and Lyft—especially in the earlier versions of the platform; they change very rapidly—they don’t necessarily want you to call the same driver every time, [even] if you have a good relationship with them. So that’s what you mentioned, that the design of these systems sometimes keeps people in opposition with each other, which is problematic, because that’s not the technology doing that, right? That’s the organization, and sometimes the laws that are involved, that don’t allow for consumers and workers, or people more broadly, to be able to talk to each other in meaningful ways.

And in my case, on TalentFinder as well, I spoke to clients, consumers or people who are hiring these workers, and a lot of them were just unaware. They’re like, “Oh my gosh.” I highlighted in the book that they designed the rating system to say, “Just give us your feedback. This is private. We just want it to improve how the platform operates.” What they don’t tell them is that if they were to give them something slightly less than ideal, it could really imperil the workers‘ opportunity to get a next job.

We sometimes refer to this as an information asymmetry, where the platform, or the organizations, they have more information, and are able to use it in ways that are advantageous to them, but are less advantageous to the workers and consumers that are using these services.

JJ: And part of what you talk about in the book is just that opacity, that organizations are collecting information, perhaps nominally in service of consumers and the “consumer experience,” but it’s opaque. It’s not information that folks could get access to, and that’s part of the problem.

Hatim Rahman: “If you are a worker, or if you are the one who is being evaluated, it’s not only you don’t know the criteria, but it could be changing.”

HR: That’s right. It goes to this point that these technologies, they can be transparent, they can be made accountable, if organizations, or in combination with lawmakers mandating, take those steps to do so. And we saw this early on on the platform that I study, and also on YouTube and many other platforms, where they were very transparent about, “Hey, the number of likes that you get or the number of five ratings you get, we’re going to use that to determine where you show up in the search results, whether we’re going to suggest you to a consumer or a client.”

However, we’ve increasingly seen, with the different interests that are involved, that platforms no longer reveal that information, so that if you are a worker, or if you are the one who is being evaluated, it’s not only you don’t know the criteria, but it could be changing. So today, it could be how fast you respond to somebody’s message. Tomorrow, it might be how many times did you log into the platform.

And that’s problematic, because if you think about learning, the ability to learn, it fundamentally relies on being able to establish a relationship between what you observe, or what you do, and the outcome that leads to. And when that becomes opaque, and it’s so easy to change dynamically—sometimes even, let’s put aside day-to-day, maybe hour-to-hour, minute-to-minute—those really kind of supercharge the capabilities to what I call enable this dynamic opacity.

JJ: And not for nothing, but it’s clear that in terms of worker solidarity, in terms of workers sharing communication with each other, put it simple, workers need to communicate with other workers about what they’re getting paid, about their experience on the job. This is anti all of that.

HR: In related research, for my own and others, we have tried to examine this as well, especially gig work; the setup of this work makes it very difficult for workers to organize together in ways that are sustainable. Not only that, many workers may be drifting in and out of these platforms, which again makes it harder, because they’re not employees, they’re not full-time employees. And I talk to people in the book, I mentioned people, they’re between jobs, so they just want to kind of work on it.

So in almost every way, from the design of the platform to employment relationship, the barriers to create meaningful, sustainable alternatives, or resistance or solidarity, becomes that much more difficult. That doesn’t mean workers aren’t trying; they are, and there are organizations out there, one called Fairwork and others, that are trying to create more sustainable partnerships, that will allow workers to collectively share their voices, so that hopefully there are mutually beneficial outcomes.

I talked about this earlier; I mean, just to connect again with history, I think we can all agree that it’s good that children are not allowed to work in factories. There was a time when that was allowed, right? But we saw the effects that could have on the injuries, and just overall in terms of people’s development. And so we need to have this push and pull to create more mutually beneficial outcomes, which currently isn’t occurring to the same extent on a lot of these gigs and digital platforms.

JJ: Finally, first of all, you’re highlighting this need for interclass solidarity, because this is lawyers, doctors—everybody’s in on this. Everybody has a problem with this, and that’s important. But also, so many tech changes, people feel like they’re just things that happen to them. In the same way that climate change, it’s just a thing that’s happening to me. And we are encouraged into this kind of passivity, unfortunately. But there are ways to move forward. There are ways to talk about this. And I just wonder, what do you think is the political piece of this, or where are meaningful points of intervention?

Consumer Reports (5/07)

HR: That’s a great question. I do like to think about this through the different lenses that you mentioned. What can I do as an individual? What can I do in my organization? And what can we do at the political level? And, briefly, on the individual consumer level, we do have power, and we do have a voice, going back to the past, right? Consumer Reports. Think about that. Who was that started by? And that had a very influential difference on the way different industries ran.

And we’ve seen that, also, for sustainability. There’s a lot of third-party rating systems started by consumers that have pushed organizations towards better practices.

So I know that may sound difficult as well, but as I mentioned, there’s this organization called Fairwork that is trying to do this in the digital labor context.

So I would say that you don’t have to do it on your own. There are existing platforms and movements, as individuals, that you can try to tap onto, and to share these what we call again third-party alternative rating systems, that we can collectively say, “Hey, let’s use our economic power, our political power, to transact on platforms that have more transparency or more accountability, that are more sustainable, that treat workers better.” So that’s one, on the political level.

Maybe my disposition is a little bit more optimistic, but I think that we’ve seen, in the last few years, with the outsized impact social media has suggested it’s had on our discourse and politics, that politicians are more willing than before, and I know sometimes the bar is really low, but still, again, on the optimistic side, that they’re at least willing to listen, and hopefully work with these platforms, or the workers on the platforms, because, again, I really fundamentally feel that ensuring that these technologies and these platforms reflect our mutual priorities is going to be better for these organizations and society and workers in the long term as well.

We don’t want to just kick the can down the road, because of what you talked about earlier, as it relates to climate change and CO2 emissions; we’ve been kicking it down the road, and we are collectively seeing the trauma as it relates to heat exhaustion, hurricanes….

And so, of course, that should be warning signs for us, that trying to work together now, at all of those different levels, is necessary. There’s not a silver bullet. We need all hands on deck from all areas and angles to be able to push forward.

JJ: I thank you very much for that. I co-sign that 100%.

We’ve been speaking with Hatim Rahman. He’s assistant professor at Northwestern University. The book we’re talking about is Inside the Invisible Cage: How Algorithms Control Workers. It’s out next month from University of California Press. Hatim Rahman, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

HR: Thank you for having me.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

University of California Press (2024)

This week on CounterSpin: The power of the algorithm is ever clearer in our lives, even if we don’t understand it. You might see it as deciding what you see on social media sites, where maybe they get it wrong: You don’t actually want to see a lot of horror movies, or buy an air fryer; you just clicked on that once.

But algorithms don’t only just guess at what you might like to buy; sometimes they’re determining whether you get a job, or keep it. Some 40 million people in the US use online platforms to find work, to find livelihood. The algorithms these platforms use create an environment where organizations enact rules for workers’ behavior, reward and sanction them based on that, but never allow workers to see these accountancies that make their lives unpredictable, much less work with them to develop measurements that would be meaningful.

Hatim Rahman has been working on this question; he’s assistant professor of management and organizations at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. And he’s author of a new book about it: Inside the Invisible Cage: How Algorithms Control Workers, forthcoming in August from University of California Press.

Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look back at recent press coverage of climate disruption.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.

Officers questioned nearly all of those detained about their connections to Shafiur Rahman, a U.K.-based Bangladeshi freelance journalist and documentary filmmaker whose reporting covers how Bangladesh government policies have negatively impacted the Rohingya population, according to Rahman and two of those detained, who spoke to CPJ on the condition of anonymity due to fear of reprisal. Several of those detained from the APNOR meeting were also shown Rahman’s photo and asked if they knew him.

Authorities also ordered participants to remove the passwords from their mobile phones and laptops, which remained in police custody as of June 25, according to the sources who spoke to CPJ.

Bangladesh hosts over one million Rohingya refugees in camps that human rights organizations say are characterized by poor conditions.

Rahman told CPJ that he was not associated with APNOR. Rahman added that the latest actions posed a threat to his safety and ability to work in Bangladesh’s Rohingya camps, where journalists have reported receiving threats from the country’s authorities as well as from those living inside the camps.

“These actions amount to harassment by proxy, as the authorities are using their influence to silence and intimidate me indirectly as well as intimidating [Rohingya] youth who have nothing to do with me,” the journalist said.

Rohingya journalists have told CPJ and other press freedom organizations that Bangladesh authorities have subjected them to surveillance, harassment, and threats in retaliation for their work.

Mohammad Ali Arafat, Bangladesh’s state minister for information and broadcasting, told CPJ that he would look into the matter but did not provide further information by the time of publication. Rashed Hasan, deputy director and public relations officer of National Security Intelligence, did not respond to CPJ’s messages requesting comment.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Together, these three women play a central role in the difficult task of supporting Gaza’s press corps at a time of unprecedented strife and loss amid Israeli attacks and restrictions on basic supplies. At least 95 journalists and media workers have been killed since the war began on October 7. The vast majority of these fatalities are Palestinians killed in Israeli airstrikes; Israeli forces also killed three Lebanese journalists and two Israelis were killed by Hamas. With international journalists blocked from entering Gaza, the responsibility of covering the war falls on those who are living through it.

Osman, executive editor of Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism, Khayyat, communications officer at the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate, and Rahman, the founder and director of the women- and youth-focused Palestinian NGO Filastiniyat, are committed to helping Gaza journalists survive and continue to report. Collectively, they have provided aid to hundreds of journalists on the ground. (CPJ recently supported these three groups with a $300,000 grant in emergency funds.)

CPJ spoke with Osman, Rahman, and Khayyat in separate phone calls about the day-to-day reality for journalists in Gaza and the challenges with providing aid in wartime. The interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Hoda Osman, executive editor of Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism

What are you hearing from journalists on the ground?

The day-to-day includes a lot of uncertainty and unpredictability. They have a home today, they might not have a home tomorrow. They have their family members with them today, they might lose them tomorrow. They themselves are alive today, they might be injured or killed tomorrow. Almost all the journalists we know have lost someone. The recent Israeli air strike on the hospital in Deir el Balah, where several journalists were injured, was a potent reminder of how things could change any day.

Almost all the journalists we know have been displaced, many of them have more than once, and many of them are living in tents. They have lost a lot of weight and it’s visible in pictures. Finding food and water is a daily challenge, especially in the north [where the international community warns of a famine]. One of the journalists told me he reports stories of people facing hunger when he himself is hungry. Using the bathroom is extremely difficult; imagine having to stand in line for hours to use the bathroom. One journalist told me they limit how much they drink so they wouldn’t need to use the bathroom frequently. These journalists are covering this war while facing this humanitarian crisis that everyone in Gaza is facing right now.

There are also work-related challenges. There is no protective gear in Gaza, except what was already there. Transportation due to fuel shortages is difficult, so moving from place to place to report is a problem. One journalist was jokingly telling me that donkey and horsecarts have now become the norm. Another journalist I know walks several kilometers every morning from their tent to the hospital where they work and walks back at the end of the day.

Then there are communications: How do you work as a journalist without power or connectivity? It’s a huge challenge to charge phones or other devices. A couple of journalists we know had their phones stolen because they were charging them in public places. Many journalists left their equipment when they left their homes, and they end up losing work because they have nothing to use to report. I can’t tell you how many journalists tell me they’re using their mother’s phone; some journalists write and file stories on their nieces’ phones. They’re not high-quality phones. They do everything on one device, if they’re lucky to have one. They record, they edit, they take pictures, they write, and they file. They get very little rest and they work constantly.

What type of support are you giving to journalists in Gaza?

Our focus from the start has been on replacing the lost or damaged equipment, allowing journalists to continue working and providing for themselves and their families. It also gives them a purpose: It helps to continue to work. We had to adapt constantly to the changing situation and where the journalists were. They kept moving south, so we changed our operations to be able to provide what they needed, wherever they were. We also provided humanitarian assistance like tents, mattresses and covers, clothes, and toiletries. We set up a couple of common working areas that are equipped with solar panels, chairs, tables, and internet connectivity. So far, we’ve assisted 150 journalists with both humanitarian assistance and equipment replacement. 

Can you talk about the equipment your group has been able to provide to journalists?

We are purchasing everything from inside Gaza and there are shortages now. We have resorted to buying used equipment when we can’t find what is needed on the market. For photojournalists, whose work is taking pictures and videos, if they have no camera how do they do their work? We are providing them with phones that have high enough quality to take good quality pictures and videos, like the iPhone 14 Pro Max. For the journalists who are not photojournalists and they write, they report, they interview, we try to determine the need and are careful about making sure we provide them with something really helpful for their work.

It’s especially important to support the journalists with equipment to continue reporting because no foreign journalists are allowed to enter Gaza. Many of the journalists who work for international organizations have been evacuated, so who is going to cover what is going on if these brave journalists don’t continue to do it?

Rania Khayyat, communications officer of the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate

What are you hearing from the journalists you’re supporting about their daily lives?

They are under threat and used to living with the voice of the drones in the sky the whole time. They are used to expecting any explosion at any time. Outside of [the southern Gaza city] Rafah, it’s very dangerous. They really expect to die daily. Every time you call them, they always tell us the same sentence, it may be their “last call.” When you call them, you feel like you’re in a nightmare.

We’re not always able to communicate with people in north Gaza, and we’re happy if we can get a line with them. It is impossible to get money to journalists in the north. Many of them want to move to Rafah, but they have family members who are disabled, they cannot move.It’s a personal decision.They stay in danger. There are about 150 journalists who remain in north Gaza.

How are Gaza’s journalists continuing to work during the war?

If they did not do their job, nobody would know what happened. This is their only source of income, so they are obliged to do their job in a very hard situation. It also depends on who the journalist works for. If he is a freelancer in Rafah, his mobility is only on foot. If you work for an outlet that gives you a car and fuel, that’s easier.

The internet and communication services have been interrupted many times and are expected to be interrupted, so journalists are finding alternatives. They tell me, “If you didn’t get me on this number, try this Israeli number,” or, “I will get an internet connection from Egypt.”

How are you planning to provide support to journalists as the war continues?

This is a hard thing to predict. We don’t know what will happen, even the scenarios of the war: Will it end or will it expand? The journalists still hope to return to their homes, even under rubble. They all say, “Even under rubble we will live better than being in a tent.” It all depends on political developments. Every day we have new needs and we try to respond to them based on the situation. I’m speaking with about 10 journalists daily, mainly on WhatsApp. Others, it’s every two or three weeks. I check in on them and see what they need. I ask how they are. They are really my friends.

Wafa’ Abdel Rahman, founder and director of Filastiniyat

What can you tell us about the reality on the ground for Gaza’s journalists?

There is a difference between the journalists who are based in the north of Gaza — Jabalia, Gaza City, Beit Hanoun — a different reality for those in the middle, and another different reality in the south. When it comes to the north, it’s worse because you have the famine. It’s not just the bombardment, it’s the lack of food, water, and medicine.

These are not journalists who have been deployed to Gaza, and it’s not their choice to be there. This looks very tough when talking about women journalists: Everyone is expecting them to take care of the family, to maintain the family, to cook for the family. The majority want to continue reporting, while at the same time taking care of their families.

Can you talk about the importance of journalists being able to continue reporting on this war?

First, there is nobody else [to report], and we need to put more pressure on letting international media in. Second, which is no less important: With the bombardment of the main human rights organizations and [reports of] the targeting of their field workers, whether they like it or not the journalists become human rights defenders. Journalists are the ones who are documenting the crimes. They are our eyes and ears on the ground. They’re the voices of those who are killed and those who are still surviving. We need them.

Even when it comes to the assistance distribution, it’s the word of the journalists. They’re covering where you can go, what you can do, where you can find vaccines. The journalists are needed inside Gaza, and they are needed for the outside world to know what’s going on. It’s a huge responsibility.

Your organization has provided material aid to journalists, from hygiene kits to tents for female journalists to work and sleep. What do you provide when such materials are hard to come by?

After everything got scarce, the best way to provide help was cash. We started providing cash to women journalists, who are the priority, but we’re helping male journalists too. We have so far served more than 300 women journalists and 120 male journalists with cash. The average amount of cash assistance given to journalists is 800 shekels (US$217). We’ll need to increase this again because the prices have, in some cases, increased by 600 percent. For example, sugar is 70 shekels (US$19.42) a kilo now and it was six shekels (US$1.66) before the war.

What is in high demand by the journalists you’re helping?

The first demand is for a ceasefire now. Second, journalists want to evacuate Gaza, it’s a demand that is growing a lot.

On the ground, we still need tents for the families of the journalists. We need to preserve their dignity, so structures like portable houses would be better until this war is over. There are also the primitive needs: the clean water and the medicine. There is no medicine, you can’t find anything for the flu, for headaches. Getting those in is a luxury.

What does it mean for journalists to want to leave Gaza, knowing they might not be able to ever go back?

It’s as simple as that, it’s genocide. You’re not talking about a war or a conflict. Those people we’re talking about, they survived six wars before. In 2021, according to our monitoring, more than 49 media outlets were destroyed and bombarded, including our office in Gaza. Despite all the difficult situations that they went through, they never thought of asking for evacuation. Never. Today it’s not a question of can they stand it, it’s a life or death threat.

[Editor’s note: CPJ has not independently confirmed the total number of media outlets attacked in 2021.]

The targeted killing of journalists says a lot. We’ve seen how people are reacting to journalists. One of our reporters moved from Gaza City to a relative’s house further south. He had one condition, that she doesn’t work. In order for her to continue working she would wait for everyone to sleep. She’s working in secrecy, and when we publish her work we don’t use her name upon her request, because it’s too dangerous for her. When you don’t have social protection because everyone is scared for their lives, and when you see with your own eyes your colleagues and friends getting killed, it’s not easy. This is why they reach this point of khalas [“enough”], it’s time to leave. 

Our editor evacuated to Egypt with her children and she continued working. I wanted to give her a couple of weeks off, I wanted her to settle. She said she felt guilty and she wanted to work. They evacuate, but they don’t really leave.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Lucy Westcott.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of the ruling Awami League party returned to power for her fifth term amid an opposition boycott and low voter turnout. The U.S. State Department said the elections were “not free or fair.”

Mujib Mashal, South Asia bureau chief for The New York Times, told CPJ that the newspaper was denied prior approval by the Bangladesh government to report on the polls.

Separately, on Saturday, January 6, the day before the election, the Daily Manab Zamin newspaper’s website was blocked in Bangladesh following its critical reporting on the government, according to Matiur Rahman Chowdhury, the outlet’s editor-in-chief.

Chowdhury said the outlet did not receive a government notice detailing why the website was blocked, and access was restored on Monday, January 8.

At around 1 p.m. on election day, around 15 to 20 men wearing Awami League badges attacked seven journalists– MA Rahim, a correspondent for the broadcaster Ananda TV, Rimon Hossain, a camera operator with Ananda TV; Masud Rana, a correspondent with the online news portal enews71; Sumon Khan, a correspondent with the broadcaster Mohona TV; Elias Bosunia, a correspondent with the broadcaster Bangla TV; Minaj Islam, a correspondent with the newspaper Daily Vorer Chetona; and Hazrat Ali, a correspondent with the newspaper Dainik Dabanol, during their coverage of an assault on independent candidate Ataur Rahman outside a polling station in northern Lalmonirhat district, according to Rahim and Rana.

The men beat several of the journalists with iron rods and bamboo sticks, beat and pushed others, and broke and confiscated multiple pieces of equipment including cameras and microphones—according to those sources and a complaint filed at the Hatibandha Police Station by Rana, which alleged the perpetrators were led by brothers Md. Zahidul Islam and Md. Mostafa, nephews of the incumbent parliamentarian contested by Rahman.

Md. Zahidul Islam told CPJ that he denied involvement in the attack. Islam did not respond to CPJ’s follow-up question about Mostafa’s alleged involvement in the attack.

Saiful Islam, officer-in-charge of the Hatibandha Police Station, did not respond to CPJ’s request for comment.

Separately, at around 2:40 p.m., around 25 men surrounded Sirajul Islam Rubel, a correspondent for The Daily Star newspaper, and Arafat Rahaman, a reporter for The Daily Star, as they tried to leave a polling station in the capital Dhaka after covering an alleged ballot stuffing attempt by Awami League supporters, Rubel told CPJ.

The men grabbed the journalists’ phones, deleted their video footage and photos of the incident, and blocked their exit from the center along with Daily Star reporter Dipan Nandy, who subsequently joined Rubel and Rahaman to report from the station. The trio managed to leave with the assistance of police at around 3:05 p.m., Rubel said.

Separately, at around 2:45 p.m., around 20 to 25 men beat Mosharrof Shah, a correspondent for the daily newspaper Prothom Alo, after he photographed and filmed alleged ballot stuffing by Awami League supporters at a polling station in southeast Chittagong city, the journalist told CPJ.

Shah said that while speaking to an electoral officer about the incident, the men approached the journalist, took his notebook where he wrote what he observed, and deleted footage from his mobile phone in the presence of police. The men repeatedly slapped and punched Shah before he managed to flee the scene after around 30 minutes, the journalist told CPJ, adding that he received his phone back around one hour later with the assistance of his journalist colleagues.

Shah identified one of the perpetrators as Nurul Absar, general secretary of a local unit of the Chhatra League, the student wing of the Awami League. Absar did not respond to CPJ’s request for comment.

Previously, on September 24, alleged members of the Chhatra League attacked Shah on the University of Chittagong campus.

Separately, at around 4 p.m., a group of 20 to 30 men surrounded and assaulted Saif Bin Ayub, a sub-editor for the Daily Kalbela newspaper, and took his laptop, phone, other personal items while he was photographing alleged ballot stuffing by Awami League supporters inside a polling center in Dhaka, the journalist told CPJ.

The men pushed Bin Ayub against a wall and punched him, kicked him in the abdomen, and scratched him while forcibly removing his press identification card from around his neck. The perpetrators then dragged him out of the building as he requested help from police present at the scene, the journalist said. 

Officers did not intervene and the beating continued outside for around 15 minutes, the journalist said, adding that he received his phone and broken laptop back later that day but not his wallet, wristwatch and other items.

Separately, at around 4:30 p.m., around eight to 10 men—including electoral officials and teenagers wearing Awami League badges—pushed Sam Jahan, a Reuters video journalist, out of a vote counting room in a polling station in Dhaka. Two of the teenagers then chased Jahan out of the station, he told CPJ.

Separately, Awami League supporters surrounded and obstructed the work of four journalists with the New Age newspaper—correspondent Muktadir Rashid, photojournalist Sourav Laskar, and reporters Nasir Uz Zaman and Tanzil Rahaman—during their coverage of polling stations in Dhaka, Rashid told CPJ.

Separately, unidentified perpetrators threw bricks from behind at Mohiuddin Modhu, a news presenter and correspondent for the broadcaster Jamuna Television, after the journalist tried to speak to a young teenager who attempted to cast a ballot in the Nawabganj sub-district of Dhaka district.

Biplab Barua, Awami League office secretary and special aide to Prime Minister Hasina, told CPJ that law enforcement took swift action regarding all attacks on journalists on election day. Barua added that the government is committed to launching investigations into all such incidents and bringing the perpetrators to justice.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

On Saturday, October 28, at least 27 journalists covering rallies in the capital of Dhaka were attacked by supporters of the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the ruling Awami League party, as well as police, according to a statement by local press freedom group Bangladeshi Journalists in International Media, several journalists who spoke to CPJ, and various news reports.

BNP demonstrators demanded that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League step down and allow a nonpartisan caretaker government to oversee the upcoming election scheduled for January. Police fired tear gas, sound grenades, and rubber bullets to disperse BNP protesters, who threw stones and bricks in response.

“The attacks on at least 27 Bangladeshi journalists covering recent political rallies in Dhaka must see swift and transparent accountability,” said CPJ Program Director Carlos Martínez de la Serna. “The leadership and supporters of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Awami League, as well as police, must respect the rights of journalists to freely and safely report on the lead-up to the upcoming election scheduled for January.”

Md Rafsan Jani, a crime reporter for The Daily Kalbela newspaper, told CPJ that he was filming BNP supporters allegedly assaulting police officers when two demonstrators approached him and took his phone and identification card. A group of BNP supporters then surrounded Jani and beat him with iron rods, sticks, and pipes as he repeatedly identified himself as a journalist, he said, adding that he managed to escape after around 20 minutes. As of November 1, his items had not been returned.

S A Masum, a photographer for The Daily Inqilab newspaper, told CPJ that he was taking photos of a confrontation between Awami League and BNP supporters when his head was repeatedly struck from behind with what he suspected to be a bamboo stick, knocking him unconscious while the attackers, whom he did not identify, continued to beat him. Bystanders at the scene rescued Masum and took him to the hospital, where he was treated for a concussion and severe bruising and open lesions throughout his body, according to the journalist, who shared photos of his injuries with CPJ.

Md Sirajum Salekin, a crime reporter for the Dhaka Times newspaper, told CPJ that he was on his motorcycle on the way to cover clashes at the chief justice’s residence when a vehicle hit his motorcycle from behind, causing him to fall and break two bones in his right leg. Salekin said he believed he was targeted because he was wearing his press badge and his motorcycle was marked with a sticker of the Dhaka Times, which has critically reported on the Awami League.

Awami League demonstrators beat The Daily Kalbela reporter Abu Saleh Musa while covering their rally, according to The Daily Star.

Mohammad Ali Mazed, a video reporter for the French news agency Agence France-Presse, told CPJ that he was covering a clash between police and BNP demonstrators while holding a camera and press identification when five to six demonstrators surrounded him. The demonstrators damaged Mazed’s camera and other news equipment and beat him on his head, back, and right shoulder with bamboo sticks for around three minutes until the journalist fled the scene with the assistance of bystanders, he said.

Sazzad Hossain, a freelance photographer working with the news website Bangla Tribune and international outlets, including the British newspaper The Guardian and photo agency SOPA Images, told CPJ that BNP protesters threw broken bricks at him and trampled him while he was covering a clash with police.

Salahuddin Ahmed Shamim, a freelance photographer reporting for the news agency Fair News Service, told CPJ that he was covering BNP protesters allegedly assaulting police officers when seven to eight of the party’s supporters surrounded him, beat his backside with bamboo sticks, and kicked him for around 15 minutes.

Two journalists who spoke to CPJ– Sheikh Hasan Ali, chief photojournalist for Kaler Kantho newspaper, and Ahammad Foyez, senior correspondent for New Age newspaper– said they were struck with rubber bullets when police attempted to disperse BNP protesters, leaving them with minor injuries.

Ali told CPJ that an unidentified man hit the Kaler Kantho photographer Lutfor Rahman with a bamboo stick on his right shoulder while covering the same clashes.

Md Hanif Rahman, a photographer for the Ekushey TV broadcaster, told CPJ that he and Ekushey TV reporter Touhidur Rahman were covering an arson attack on a police checkpoint when they were surrounded by a group of 10 to 12 men who beat Md Hanif Rahman with pipes and sticks and pushed Touhidur Rahman.

Rabiul Islam Rubel, a reporter for The Daily Kalbela, told CPJ that he was among a crowd of BNP supporters while covering the clashes at the chief justice’s residence when 15 to 20 men threw bricks at him while shouting that journalists are “government brokers.”

Jony Rayhan, a reporter for The Daily Kalbela, told CPJ that BNP supporters beat him while covering their rally. Rayhan was also injured by a sound grenade that landed in front of him while police were dispersing the demonstrators, he said.

Salman Tareque Sakil, chief reporter for Bangla Tribune, told CPJ that he sustained a leg fracture after a brick was thrown at him while covering the BNP rally.

Jubair Ahmed, a Bangla Tribune reporter, told CPJ that while police were dispersing BNP demonstrators, a tear gas shell landed in front of him, blurring his vision before the protesters trampled him while fleeing the scene.

Tahir Zaman, a reporter for the news website The Report, was also injured by a rubber bullet while covering clashes at the BNP rally, according to his outlet and BJIM.

BJIM and local media named an additional 10 journalists who were attacked, but did not provide details on the incidents, which CPJ continues to investigate. Those journalists are:

• Touhidul Islam Tareque, reporter for The Daily Kalbela
• Kazi Ihsan bin Didar, crime reporter for the Breaking News website
• Tanvir Ahmed, reporter for The Daily Ittefaq newspaper
• Sheikh Nasir, reporter for The Daily Ittefaq
• Arifur Rahman Rabbi, reporter for the Desh Rupantor newspaper
• Masud Parvez Anis, reporter for the Bhorer Kagoj newspaper
• Saiful Rudra, special correspondent for the broadcaster Green TV
• Arju, camera operator for Green TV, who was identified by one name
• Hamidur Rahman, reporter for the Share Biz newspaper
• Maruf, a freelance journalist identified by one name

CPJ is investigating a report of a separate attack on at least one journalist on Saturday.

CPJ contacted BNP spokesperson Zahir Uddin Swapan, Information Minister and Awami League Joint Secretary Hasan Mahmud, and Dhaka Metropolitan Police Commissioner Habibur Rahman for comment, but did not immediately receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

The complaint, which CPJ reviewed, was filed by Md Shahinur Islam, who identified himself to The Daily Star as a reporter for the newspaper Amar Somoy, which supports the ruling Awami League party. It accused the journalists and other unnamed members of the opposition Jamaat-e-Islami party and Bangladesh Nationalist Party of working together to commit “anti-state crimes” and disseminate “conspiratorial news” in a July 27, 2023, Dainik Fulki article.

That article, titled “Asia’s longest-serving prime minister is finally resigning,” covered the resignation announcement of Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen but mistakenly used a photo of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, president of the Awami League. The next day, the newspaper published a correction and apology, which CPJ reviewed.

Haque left Dainik Fulki around 2019 and was not involved in the article, the journalist told CPJ.

Sakib said he believed he was being targeted to undermine his campaign in the election for Savar Press Club president, which is set to be held in the coming months. He is opposed by about five journalists who strongly support the Awami League, he said.

Similarly, Haque said he believed he was being targeted for his campaign to be the press club’s organizing secretary. He is opposed by two journalists who strongly support the ruling party, he told CPJ.

The Savar Press Club is a trade group in the Dhaka district that advocates for issues, including wage distribution, labor rights, and journalist safety.

Sakib and Haque said they do not know Islam. Islam told CPJ via messaging app that his complaint was “accurate” and claimed the two journalists were involved in “information terrorism.” Islam did not respond to CPJ’s follow-up question about his journalistic background. CPJ called, messaged, and emailed the Amar Somoy newspaper for comment, but did not receive any replies.

Separately, on July 30, Sakib received a notice from the Dhaka district deputy commissioner’s office, reviewed by CPJ, ordering the journalist to explain within seven days why Dainik Fulki’s license to operate should not be canceled following an application filed by Manjurul Alam Rajib, chair of a local government unit and an Awami League leader in Savar. The notice alleges that the July 27 article “achieved the task of tarnishing the image of the state.”

Sakib’s response, dated August 6 and reviewed by CPJ, denied that allegation, expressed regret over the “unintentional mistake,” and mentioned the published correction and apology. Haque told CPJ that he did not receive a similar notice at that time.

Bangladesh’s next national election is set for January 2024 and expected to be met with increasing violence. In late July 2023, police fired at opposition party protesters with tear gas, rubber bullets, water cannons, and beat them amid mass arrests of Bangladesh Nationalist Party leaders and activists.

In response to the government’s announcement on August 7 that the Digital Security Act will be replaced, CPJ called on authorities to ensure the new Cyber Security Act complies with international human rights law.

Hasan Mahmud, Bangladesh’s information minister and Awami League joint secretary, and Dipak Chandra Saha, officer-in-charge of the Savar Model Police Station, did not respond to CPJ’s requests for comment sent via messaging app. CPJ also contacted Rajib and Anisur Rahman, Dhaka district deputy commissioner, via messaging app for comment, but did not receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On Monday, May 8, the provincial directorate of the Taliban-controlled Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in the eastern province of Khost detained four journalists after summoning them for questioning, according to the exile-based media support group Afghanistan Journalists Center and the London-based broadcaster Afghanistan International.

Authorities accused the journalists of violating the Taliban’s media policies, according to the AFJC report, which cited an anonymous source that did not specify which policies they allegedly violated. CPJ could not immediately determine where the journalists are being held.

“The Taliban must immediately release four journalists recently detained in Khost province and stop the harassment and intimidation of the press in Afghanistan,” said Beh Lih Yi, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “The Taliban must abide by its own promise to protect press freedom. The Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice should be held accountable for its crackdown on journalists.”

Those sources identified the journalists as Sakhi Sarwar Miakhel, editor-in-chief of the privately owned Gharghast Radio and TV; Mohammad ud Din Shah Khiali, editor-in-chief of the privately owned Wolas Ghag Radio; Pamir Andish Mohaidi, editor-in-chief of the privately owned Chinar Radio; and Abdul Rahman Ashna, a reporter with the privately owned broadcaster Nan FM.

Shabir Ahmad Osmani, the Taliban’s director of information and public affairs in Khost, said the journalists had been summoned so authorities could share “some important issues” with them, and denied that they had been detained, according to AFJC.

CPJ contacted Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid for comment via messaging app but did not receive any response.

Afghanistan’s independent media have come under increasing pressure since the Taliban took back control of the country in 2021. On March 31, Taliban authorities shut down the women-run broadcaster Radio Sada e Banowan for allegedly playing music, which the Taliban banned after its return to power.  

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

In the early morning of Wednesday, March 29, authorities arrested Prothom Alo correspondent Shamsuzzaman Shams under the Digital Security Act for allegedly spreading “false news” in a March 26 article.

On Wednesday evening, authorities in the capital city of Dhaka opened another DSA investigation into Prothom Alo editor Matiur Rahman, Shams, an unnamed camera operator at the outlet, and other unidentified people, according to news reports, Prothom Alo executive editor Sajjad Sharif, who spoke to CPJ by phone, and a copy of the first information report launching that investigation, dated March 29 at 11:10 p.m., which CPJ reviewed.

Also on Wednesday, Mithun Biswas, a lawyer based in southern city of Chittagong, issued a legal notice to Rahman, Sharif, and Shams demanding they unconditionally and publicly apologize for that March 26 article within seven days or face legal action, according to news reports and a copy of the notice reviewed by CPJ.

On Thursday morning, Shams appeared before a Dhaka court and was denied bail, according to news reports. Authorities had not arrested Rahman or the camera operator as of Thursday evening, Sharif said.

“Bangladesh authorities’ harassment of staff members with the Prothom Alo newspaper and the arrest of correspondent Shamsuzzaman Shams under the draconian Digital Security Act are clear attempts to quash critical reporting,” said Carlos Martinez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director. “Authorities must immediately release Shams and cease abusing the legal process against journalists, which produces a chilling effect on the media.”

That March 26 article and a post on Facebook briefly used a child’s photo to accompany a quote from an adult laborer about price hikes; the outlet swiftly removed the Facebook post and re-published the article on its website and Facebook page with a correction.

The investigation opened Wednesday night by the Ramna police station in Dhaka was sparked by a complaint by Abdul Malek, a lawyer who said the accused had used “print, online and electronic media to tarnish the image and reputation of the state” and displayed that erroneous image. When reached by phone, Malek told CPJ that he stood by the allegations in the complaint, and the journalists should be punished for their work “against the independence” of the country.

Police are investigating the accused under three sections of the Digital Security Act pertaining to the transmission or publication of offensive, false, or threatening information; publication or transmission of information that deteriorates law and order; and abetment, according to the first information report.

The first two offenses can carry a prison sentence of three to seven years and fines of 300,000 taka to 500,000 taka (US$2,797 to $4,662), according to the law, which says abetment can carry the same punishment as committing an offense itself.

CPJ called and messaged Abu Ansar, the investigating officer in the case, and Roy Niyati, a Dhaka metropolitan police spokesperson, for comment, but did not receive any replies.

CPJ called the phone number listed for Biswas in his legal notice, but received an error message. CPJ was unable to immediately find other contact information for him.

In February, CPJ joined civil society organizations in a letter calling on Bangladesh to cease the judicial harassment of Prothom Alo special correspondent Rozina Islam, who faces an ongoing investigation under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act and the penal code in apparent retaliation for reporting on alleged corruption in the public health sector at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

At least 28 members of the press were obstructed, harassed, or attacked while covering gubernatorial and state assembly elections across Nigeria on March 18 and 19, according to news reports and journalists who spoke with CPJ.

“Nigerian authorities should swiftly identify and hold accountable those responsible for the recent attacks, harassment, and intimidation of journalists covering state elections and ensure that members of the press feel safe to report on political issues,” said Angela Quintal, CPJ’s Africa program coordinator, in New York. “Freedom of the press during elections, which of course includes journalists’ safety to do their work, is fundamental to the democratic process.”

On March 18, at least 10 unidentified men punched and used sticks to hit a TV crew with the privately owned broadcaster Arise TV after they used a drone to film voting stations in southwestern Lagos state, according to a report by their outlet, a statement by the International Press Centre, a local media group, and one of the crew members, correspondent Oba Adeoye, who spoke with CPJ by phone.

Nearby security officers did not intervene while the men attacked Adeoye, camera operator Opeyemi Adenihun, and driver Yusuf Hassan, but seized the drone following the incident. Adenihun said he received medical treatment the next day for a cut to his face.

Lagos police spokesperson Benjamin Hundeyin told CPJ by phone that police were investigating and that Adenihun was invited for questioning on March 20 but said he did not appear. Adenihun told CPJ by phone that he had not heard from police since he reported the incident on March 18.

In Ikeja, the capital of Lagos state, Ima Elijah, a reporter with the privately owned news website Pulse.ng and her camera operator were harassed and forced out of a polling unit by unidentified individuals who insisted that the elections at that polling unit should not be reported by the media, according to a report and Instagram video by the outlet.

Also in Lagos state, two officials from Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission prevented Chibuike Chukwu, a reporter with the privately owned news website Independent, from taking pictures or videos at a polling place, according to a report by the outlet and a person familiar with the case who spoke to CPJ on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of reprisal.

In the northern city of Lafia, the Nasarawa State capital, three state security officers slapped, punched, and used sticks to hit Edwin Philip, a reporter with private broadcaster Breeze 99.9 FM, on orders from a palace official at a polling unit, according to news reports and Philip, who spoke to CPJ by phone.

Philip had been inquiring about reports that the palace official had instructed some men to beat up a voter when the officers briefly seized his phone and began beating him. Philip received stitches at a hospital for a deep cut to his head and reported the incident to the police the same day. Nigeria’s Security and Civil Defence Corps condemned the attack and apologized on March 20. Rahman Namsel, a spokesperson of the Nasarawa State Police, told CPJ by phone that he was unaware that the case was reported to the police and said he would investigate the matter.

In the city of Lagos, at least 10 unidentified individuals punched Amarachi Amushie, a reporter with the privately-owned broadcaster Africa Independent Television, on the back, punched AIT camera operator Aliu Adeshina all over his body, and chased them out of a polling place, according to the IPC statement as well as Adeshina and Amushie, who spoke to CPJ by phone. Neither journalist sustained a significant injury. 

Also in Lagos, unidentified people chased AIT correspondent Henrietta Oke out of a polling place, and others confiscated AIT correspondent Nkiru Nwokedi’s phone at another polling place, returning it 20 minutes later following intervention from community leaders, according to that IPC statement and Nwokedi, who spoke to CPJ by phone.

In northern Kano state, dozens of unidentified men accused Ashiru Umar, editor and senior correspondent with the privately owned broadcaster Premier Radio, of filming them, grabbed his phone, and stomped on it at a polling place in Daladanchi, a town in northern Kano state, according to a report by the privately owned website Premium Times and Umar, who spoke to CPJ by phone.

The men beat Umar with their hands, sticks, and stones and attempted to stab him in the back with a knife. Umar was treated at a hospital for a swollen jaw, bruises, and minor cuts to his knee and hands and filed a report with the police, he told CPJ. CPJ’s calls and text messages to Kano police spokesperson Haruna Abdullahi did not receive any response.

In the city of Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital, at least five unidentified individuals, including a masked man with an axe, chased at least 10 journalists after noticing them filming a voting station, according to the IPC statement, a report, and two of those reporters, Adejoke Adeleye, a reporter with the privately owned outlet PM News, and Yusuf Adeleke, a reporter and editor with the privately owned news website Newsflagship, who spoke to CPJ by phone. CPJ’s calls and text messages to Abimbola Oyeyemi, the state’s police spokesperson, did not receive a reply.

On March 19, an official from the Independent National Electoral Commission ordered four security officers to prevent Ayo Adenaiye, an Arise TV news correspondent, James Akpa Oche, a campus reporter at Bayero University Kano, Stephen Enoch, a reporter with Plus TV Africa, and at least three other journalists from various outlets from accessing a vote collation center in the city of Kano, according to a report by Premium Times, Adenaiye, Oche, Enoch, and another reporter who was there and spoke to CPJ by phone, requesting anonymity citing fear of reprisal. The officials had a list that excluded many journalists from entering the collation center, Adenaiye said. 

CPJ called INEC national spokesperson Festus Okoye for comment but did not receive any response.

Hundeyin, the Lagos police spokesperson, responded to CPJ’s request for comment sent by messaging app requesting evidence that the attacks in Lagos state were reported to his office.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Dainik Dinkal suspended operations on February 20 after the Bangladesh Press Council, a quasi-judicial, government-funded body headed by a former High Court judge, rejected its appeal against a government shutdown order, Biswas told CPJ.

“The shutdown of Dainik Dinkal is a blatant attack on media freedom ahead of Bangladesh’s January 2024 national election,” said Carlos Martinez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director, in New York. “Closing a newspaper violates the democratic principles purportedly espoused by the Awami League-led government, and we call on the Bangladesh Press Council to review its order and uphold the free flow of information.”  

The district administration in the capital, Dhaka, accused Dainik Dinkal on December 26 of violating local law on grounds that its publisher was a convicted criminal, but the publisher named in the order resigned the post in 2016, Biswas said.

Biswas told CPJ that the newspaper had filed documentation before the Press Council’s ruling that Tarique Rahman, acting chair of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), was no longer Dainik Dinkal’s publisher. Rahman has been convicted of several criminal and money laundering charges, and lives overseas.  

Dainik Dinkal covers BNP activities and has frequently criticized the ruling Awami League party, including the arrests of BNP politicians and supporters in what rights groups have characterized as a crackdown ahead of elections next year. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has said the polls will be “fair and free.”

CPJ emailed Mohammad Mominur Rahman, the Dhaka deputy commissioner who filed the government order, and Mohammed Nizamul Huq Nasim, head of the Bangladesh Press Council and its three-member appeal board, but did not receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

A human rights advocate appealed tonight for people in Aotearoa New Zealand to take personal responsibility in the fight against disinformation and to upskill their critical thinking skills.

Anjum Rahman, project lead of the Inclusive Aotearoa Collective Tāhono, said this meant taking responsibility for verifying the accuracy and source of information before passing it on and not fuelling hate and misunderstanding.

“Our democracy is very fragile,” she warned while delivering the annual David Wakim Memorial Lecture 2022 with the theme “Protecting Democracy in an Online World” at Parnell’s Jubilee Building.

• READ MORE: A lot has changed since March 15, 2019 – but not enough

She said communities were facing challenging and rapidly changing times with climate change, conflicts, inflation and the ongoing pandemic.

“If our democracy fails, all those other things fail as well,” she said.

“And for those of us who are more vulnerable it is a matter of life and death.

“Who most stand to lose their freedom if democracy fails? Who will be on the frontline to be exterminated?”

Rahman is co-chair of the Christchurch Call Advisory Network and a member of the Independent Advisory Committee of the Global Internet Forum for Countering Terrorism.

Argued strongly for diversity
As an advocate, she has argued strongly for many years in support of diversity and inclusion and in 2019 was made a member of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

On the third anniversary of the 15 March 2019 mosque massacre, she wrote in a column for The SpinOff that “we don’t need any more empty platitudes of sorrow . . . we need firm action and strong resolve. Across the board.”

The David Wakim Memorial Lecture 2022.                      Video: Billy Hania

The recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry were more critical now than ever, and absolutely urgent, she wrote.

“In a world that feels chaotic, with war, rising prices, anger and hate expressed in protests across the world, our hearts seek a certainty that isn’t there.

“We need more urgency, and in many areas. I’m still disappointed with the Counter-Terrorism legislation passed last year, granting greater powers without evidence of any benefit. Hate speech legislation has been delayed, and we await a full review and overhaul of the national security system.”

A founding member of the Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand, Rahman gave a wide-ranging address tonight on the online challenges for democracy, and answered a host of questions from the audience of about 100.

“I’m really worried about trolls,” said one. “They affect government, they influence voters, they have an impact on all sorts of decision making – what can be done about it?”

Rahman replied that it was very difficult question – “I wish there was a simple answer.”

Removing troll incentives
She said there needed to be more education and greater awareness of the activities of trolls and the sort of social media platforms they operated on.

One problem was that the more attention paid trolls got, it often meant the more money they were getting.

A challenge was to remove the incentive being given to them.

Award-winning cartoonist Malcolm Evans asked Rahman what her response was to the global situation “right now” with the invasion of Ukraine where people were “under intense pressure to vilify the Russians . . . treating them as ‘evil’.”

He added that “we live in a time that is probably the most dangerous that I have experienced in my lifetime … we are facing an Armageddon and I blame the media for that.

“It’s a disgrace.”

This led to a discussion by Pax Christi Aotearoa’s Janfrie Wakim about how Evans lost his job as a cartoonist on The New Zealand Herald in 2003 for “naming Israeli apartheid” over the repression of Palestinians to the loud applause of the audience.

‘Quality journalism’ paywalls
In a discussion about media, Rahman said she was disturbed by the failures of the media business model that meant increasingly “quality journalism” was being placed behind paywalls while the public that could not afford paywalls were being served “poor quality” information.

Introducing Anjum Rahman, Pax Christi’s Susan Healy said how “especially delighted the Wakim whanau were” that she had agreed to give the lecture.

David Wakim was the inaugural president of Pax Christi Aotearoa, an independent section of Pax Christi International, a Catholic organisation founded in France at the end of World War Two committed to working “to transform a world shaken by violence, terrorism, deepening inequalities, and global insecurity”.

Growing up in a Sydney Catholic family, Wakim was an advocate of interfaith dialogue. His travels in Muslim countries strengthened his links with the three faiths of Abraham – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

He helped establish the Council of Christians and Muslims in Auckland, but was especially committed to Palestinian rights.

Wakim died in 2005 and the annual lecture honours his and Pax Christi’s mahi for Tiriti o Waitangi, interfaith dialogue, peace education, human rights and restorative justice.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by David Robie.

In mid-August, Sierra Leone’s broadcast media regulator, National Telecommunications Commission, suspended the licenses of privately owned broadcasters Star Radio and Star TV for over two weeks and denied workers access to the broadcasters’ transmitters in Brookfields, a neighborhood in western Freetown, the capital, according to an August 19 commission statement and Philip Neville, the broadcasters’ founder who holds 70% ownership of shares and handles the finances.

Neville, who spoke with CPJ by phone, said that in mid-August, commission officers arrived at the offices of the broadcasters’ transmitters and ordered all the staff to vacate the premises. Neville also said the officers told him that they gave the order because the broadcasters failed to pay about 140 million leones (US$10,000) of allegedly accumulated debt that the broadcasters owed to the commission for broadcast licenses, including some licenses no longer in use. Before the commission officers’ visit and the suspension of licenses, the broadcasters believed payments to the commission were up to date and there was no debt, according to Neville.

“Authorities in Sierra Leone should allow Star television and radio stations to continue reporting the news and provide the public with information,” said Muthoki Mumo, CPJ’s sub-Saharan Africa representative, in Nairobi. “Media regulators are too often used as tools to gag the media and the suspension of Star raises concern over freedom of the press in Sierra Leone.”  

The commission’s statement said that the broadcasters failed to comply with sections 30 and 65 of the country’s telecommunications laws. According to CPJ’s review, Section 30 allows the commission to suspend or cancel broadcast licenses for various violations, including fraud, treason, or “where the suspension or cancellation is in the public interest”; Section 65 requires broadcasters to obtain “a general or specific license” to operate a radio transmitter. Neither section indicated penalties for violations and CPJ could not determine how the commission calculated the US$10,000 amount.

On August 25, Neville said that the broadcasters were permitted to resume usage of the transmitters and begin broadcasting again after his office paid 74 million leones, the equivalent of about US$5,300, to the regulator on August 23, adding that the regulator still expected the broadcasters to pay the remaining amount.

According to Neville and a copy of a 2017 letter he wrote to the commission, which CPJ reviewed, authorities granted the broadcasters separate licenses to operate in five regions—Freetown, Mile 91, Makeni, Bo, and Kenema—at the cost of US$700 annually for each radio frequency and US$2,000 annually for one television frequency.

Neville’s 2017 letter also said he had informed the commission that year that the broadcasters no longer used three of the frequencies in Bo, Kenema, and Makeni to reduce production costs, but continued to pay 6 million leones (about US$430) monthly to cover the licenses still in use. However, Neville told CPJ that the commission continued to bill his office for renewal of licenses no longer in use. Neville told CPJ that the broadcasters had always paid for the licenses used. 

Neville told CPJ that he did not understand how the US$10,000 amount had been determined. He added that paying that full amount would place financial strain on the broadcasters’ operations.

Daniel Kaitibi, commission director general, and Abdul Ben-Foday, commission director of corporate and industry affairs, both confirmed to CPJ over the phone that the broadcasters’ licenses were suspended because they allegedly owed the commission US$10,000. Ben-Foday told CPJ that the commission was empowered by law to make access to the licenses conditional on payment.

Neville alleged that the commission’s decision to suspend his broadcasters’ licenses was in reprisal for Star TV’s August 13 airing of an episode of a Facebook talk show “Tell It To Racheal,” by U.S.-based journalist Racheal Bangura Davies.  

Participants on the episode, which CPJ reviewed, blamed the Sierra Leonean government for causing violence that erupted during a nationwide protest on August 10.

Neville said the airing of the talk show episode “did not go down well” with the government, which accused the broadcasters of inciting the public against authorities. The government used the commission to punish the broadcasters, Neville said.

In a text message to CPJ, Sierra Leone information minister Mohamed Rahman Swaray denied that the suspension of the broadcasters’ licenses was connected to the airing of the talk show episode.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

On the evening of July 3, Rubel received a phone call and left the office of Kushtiar Khabar, the privately owned newspaper where he worked as acting editor, in the southwest Khulna division’s Kushtia district, according to multiple news reports and a local journalist familiar with the case, who spoke to CPJ on the condition of anonymity due to fear of reprisal.

Rubel informed his office assistant that he would return soon, and when he did not return later that night, his brother filed a missing person notice with the local police, according to those sources.

On July 7, locals found Rubel’s body in a river in Kushtia district, according to those news reports and the journalist who spoke with CPJ. The reason for his disappearance and the cause of his death remains unclear, according to those sources.

“Bangladesh authorities must conduct a swift and impartial investigation into the disappearance and death of journalist Hasibur Rahman Rubel, determine if he was targeted for his work, and ensure that any perpetrators are brought to justice,” said Robert Mahoney, CPJ’s executive director. “Authorities must work to end Bangladesh’s dreadful record of allowing journalists’ deaths to remain unsolved and to wallow in impunity.”

Rubel also worked as editor of the privately owned news website CrimeVisionBD.com, and as a correspondent for the privately owned newspaper Amader Notun Shomoy, according to those news reports and the journalist who spoke with CPJ, who added that all three outlets Rubel worked for cover politics, crime, and social issues.

Md. Kamruzzaman Talukdar, officer-in-charge of the Kumarkhali police station, whose jurisdiction covers where Rubel’s body was found, said the journalist’s body did not bear marks of injury but had “an unusual mark on his throat,” according to New Age Bangladesh.

Police have not made any arrests in the case as of July 13, according to that report and the local journalist.

CPJ contacted Talukdar and the Kushtia police for comment via messaging app, but did not receive any response.

In 2021, Bangladesh ranked 11th on CPJ’s global impunity index, which tracks countries where the murderers of journalists escape justice.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.